Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum brings together representatives from conflicting sectors of the garment industry to a recreation of the Levine family’s 1897 tenement apartment and dressmaking shop and discuss what needs to be done – and by whom – to address the problem of sweatshops today.  The museum provides a non-threatening environment in which to build dialogue around contentious social problems. The Lower East Side Tenement Museum brings together representatives from conflicting sectors of the garment industry to a recreation of the Levine family’s 1897 tenement apartment and dressmaking shop and discuss what needs to be done – and by whom – to address the problem of sweatshops today.  

The Tenement Museum preserves 97 Orchard Street, a building that was home to more than 7000 immigrants from 20 different nations between 1863 and 1935.  We restore the homes of the people who actually lived there, and tell the stories of their struggles in America.   These people stood at the center of conflicts over immigration policy, housing standards, labor rights, and civil rights that are still raging today.  Their individual stories help us to understand how we came to be where we are today, and what we need to do to move forward.  

In 1897, Harris and Jennie Levine, immigrants from Plonsk, operated a garment shop from their apartment.  This type of space, in this moment, was what the word sweatshop was first coined to describe.  Today, there are more than 400 garment shops employing nearly 15,000 immigrant workers. The Department of Labor classifies nearly ¾ of them as “sweatshops,” but the debate still rages over what a sweatshop is, what should be done to address labor abuses, and who is responsible.  

We decided to try to make the restored Levine family home a center for people in conflict over shared problems in the garment industry to exchange ideas about how to develop shared solutions.  We invited an unusual group to pay a visit to the recreated 1897 home and factory of Harris and Jennie Levine. Packed in an intimate circle, leaders of conflicting sectors of the garment industry today – workers and manufacturers, retailers and union organizers – listened to the story of how this Russian immigrant family slept, ate, raised a family, and turned out hundreds of dresses in a tiny 325-square-foot space.  Participants included Eileen Fisher, Human Rights Watch, UNITE! (the garment workers’ union), Levi’s, the Kings County Manufacturers Association, and more.  

These were people who refused to come together in other settings, but agreed to meet and talk at the Museum.  We had to emphasize that our interpretation of the past would be from multiple perspectives, raising questions for debate, rather than telling a single story of blame.  In general, participants told us they felt comfortable coming together at a little history museum where they would not feel comfortable in other settings.  As one participant put it, “The environment here puts everyone a little off-balance, in a way that really opens discussion.  It provides a wonderful opportunity to look at all these issues together.”  The group held a day-long summit about what new perspective could be gained by looking at the garment industry in the past, and what new ideas it suggested for preventing sweatshop conditions in the future.  Since then, we have hosted similar dialogues with dozens of garment industry groups.   

Implementing the tactic in another context:  
It is very important to follow up with each participant so that they can use the museum to promote further dialogue, making the space an ongoing forum for discussion.  A number of participants did bring their own groups back to discuss issues in the industry and how they could deal with them internally, but stronger follow up would have brought more.  

It is very important to carefully construct the “arc,” or format, of the dialogue, and to have a strong facilitator.  This ensures that people move from personal reactions to larger civic issues, appreciate and listen to opposing views, and have the opportunity to exchange views in small group settings as well as large forums.  When dealing with sensitive issues, communication can break down completely without a carefully constructed mechanism for exchange.  

Photo Credit: Palmerston North City Library